Author Topic: Monetary Wealth  (Read 3322 times)

guest5

  • Guest
Monetary Wealth
« on: July 10, 2020, 08:04:44 pm »
Understanding the Problem – Debt-Based Fiat Currency

Quote
Amidst the endless, brain-numbing talk between the parties of the centre-left and those centre-right in any given democratic country on the issues of privatisation, ‘leasing’ (which is just privatisation in disguise), taxes and interest rates lies the inescapable existence of money. It is this object to which virtually every single politician will base their policies and arguments around as opposed to at – those who have historically chosen the latter approach turn out like John F. Kennedy or Gough Whitlam, assassinated or prematurely disenfranchised. None who are ‘representatives’ in office dare actually question this God-like tool of social power directly when discussing the issues of poverty, the wealth gap or cuts to public funding; or more specifically, the issues that money – under its present mode of usage – cause.

The current central banking practice that encompasses virtually all democratic nations of the world – and this includes Australia – is based on the ‘concept’ (as if you could really call something that is purposely flawed a concept, but for lack of a better word …) of debt-based fiat currency. The official name of this concept is immediately off-setting to perhaps nine-out-of-ten people who hear it – no one really wants to know why ‘debt’ and ‘currency’ are appearing together in a term that is meant to imply wealth generation. Here this article will explain the debt-based fiat currency monetary model for what it really is – a government-approved, privatised, self-generating debt system. This exceptionally oppressive financial paradigm is responsible for every war which has involved the United States (Banks) of America in the last one hundred years (and counting) and is at the core root of why there is more slavery, social injustice, moral depravity, political corruption and poverty in the world today than ever before in the history of mankind.

The system is simple to understand. The central (or reserve) bank of any democratic nation in the world today is a joint private-government trust. In fact, the only role the government plays is the official recognition of that said entity (e.g. the Reserve Bank of Australia) as the legal provider of the money supply. The actual running central bank is left solely to the initiative of the private aspect of the partnership. And here is how they do it …

The government decides that it needs to increase the national money pool. In doing this, they (the government) establish a contract with the central bank whereby treasury bonds (meaningless pieces of paper) valued at ‘x’ amount are traded with the central bank in exchange for an ‘x’ amount of legal tender (money). However, the government bonds are only an artificial means of goodwill, the central bank actually loans the money to the government with interest attached – the government is obliged by contract to pay back the money borrowed plus interest. Since the central bank is the only source of more money, the government can never generate the interest it needs to pay without another loan from central bank, which again, comes with more interest. Hence, the government and, by extension, the nation as a whole, is constantly in debt to the central bank (which if you haven’t figured out by now, is really just a private loan sharking enterprise encompassing international dimensions). Even if a said government was to tax its citizens 100 per cent of their income, they still would not be able to pay off the debt they owe to the central bank – simply because the interest does not exist until the latter prints an additional batch of money with more new interest attached. This is how ‘debt’ and ‘currency’ go hand-in-hand regarding the term ‘debt-based fiat currency’.
https://federsgenius.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/understanding-the-problem-debt-based-fiat-currency/

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2020, 08:07:49 pm »
The Solution – Labour-based Currency

Quote
Having established the fundamental problem of our current economic system, we will now present the essential principles of a viable solution – labour-based currency – and how this system would be practically be implemented. If you have not read our original essay, and don’t understand the problem of debt-based finance, then I recommend you first read Part 1 – Understanding the Problem.

Under a labour-backed fiat currency model, the money supply is expanded via the government’s expenditures for the maintenance and developing of a particular public projects, be it in the form of social and emergency services (e.g. public transportation, garbage disposal, welfare, ambulances, fire control, police and all other typical government sector related jobs) or state infrastructure (e.g. roads, energy plants, water sanitation, government housing). What should be made clear is that under a labour-backed currency production model all banking – in both central and commercial capacities – is managed wholly by the state as a non-profit organisation for the safeguarding of the individual citizen’s monetary reserves, the provision of interest-free loans and the regulation of the national money supply. All costs regarding a given government-funded project are calculated – namely essential building materials and required human labour – and prices for the purchasing of needed materials and workers are rationalised by the government (i.e. the state dictates the value of certain materials, goods and labour). The entire focus of the labour-backed fiscal model is to base a given currency, unique to a single nation, on the ability of the central government of that one nation to mobilise its manpower and material resources for the production and maintenance of essential infrastructures and services.

All payments by the government to workers and collaborating private enterprises (e.g. some materials [wood, concrete, wire, etc …] to build infrastructure may need to be acquired from a private source, which is fine) is made in the form of a receipt that can be cashed in at the state-run national bank. What should be remembered from all this is that the money supply can only be expanded at the behest of the government’s ability to provide jobs to those who do not own a business or work within the private sector. The private sector will only ever be able to utilise money that the public sector produced. Where private enterprise fails to generate jobs, the government takes over. This guarantees that a significant degree of a nation’s labour pool remains in government hands for the maintenance of public welfare and not for achieving the private interests of a wealth-laden elite. A currency bound to this system also becomes inflation-proof.

Regarding private enterprise in and on its own, the state still plays a regulating role by encouraging more business to thrive in areas where the generation of privately produced essential goods and services (e.g. foodstuffs, clothing and hair salons) is deemed to be insufficient and by discouraging business in areas where there is deemed to be a surplus of unessential goods and services (e.g. makeup, perfume, iPhones and entertainment television). This prevents private enterprise from hijacking government-standardised prices by means of either purposely holding back on the production of certain essential goods and services to force a rise in value or by fabricating over-demand (namely through advertisement) for the selling of surplus numbers of unessential goods.

Since all government services to a nation are monetarily compensated by the government’s own means (i.e. the state produces the money it needs to spend), income tax becomes irrelevant, even for those working in the private sector. Since the government also regulates private enterprises enough insofar as how much they can produce and limiting them to a single facet of goods or services production, company tax also becomes unnecessary as a means to prevent unchecked expansionist urges (as if company tax ever served to cap aggressive business practices and wealth hoarding in the first place).

Under a labour-backed currency model, the government does not own the economy; rather the government directs the economy. Nonetheless certain key services for the maintenance of a modern state must never be privatised in order to prevent the private sector from eroding state authority over a population. This includes essential services such as water sanitation, media, postal delivery, electricity, public transportation, disaster relief, armaments production, both reserve and commercial banking, security and healthcare.

Accepting the reality that some nations lack the raw materials and means for producing certain finished goods to become truly self-sufficient, it becomes obvious that international trade is still necessary. The solution to minimise exploitation during such an exchange is to enforce – although never through an international body – that trade between nations be conducted in a fashion whereby the essential goods and/or resources of one nation are exchanged only for the essential goods and/or resources of another nation on terms reached by both trading parties. Here, exploitation by one nation against another is still, technically, possible, however never to the degree that the international trade of a given ‘global’ currency by one nation (as if people can eat or build houses out of a foreign currency) in exchange for base goods or resources of another nation allows for. Finally, labour must never be exported or imported in order to prevent private corporate interests from neglecting the available labour pool of their home nation in pursuit of greater profit.

Because money creation is relevant to government efficiency in hiring the citizens of a nation to play a pivotal role in maintaining and building-up the existence of their state, a given currency based on this model is freed from the hostile control of international finance which insists that the currency of one (x) nation is inferior to currency of another (y) nation – either because X has less gold reserves (as if people can eat or build houses out of gold) or simply because an established power group simply says that X’s money is of less value (this representing the so-called ‘modern’ system of ‘floating’ currencies) – and that the former is destined to be economically exploited by the latter. It should be noted that the existence of metal-based (historical) and debt-based (current) currencies in the Western civilisational tradition have only served to demonstrate how selfishly-orientated international banking interests (and the multi-national, multi-faceted corporations that collude with these interests) can hold entire populations hostage in what has become an inherently rigged, global resource-grabbing game.
https://federsgenius.wordpress.com/

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2020, 12:54:19 pm »
No One Understands Money, and It's Becoming a $14 Trillion Problem
Quote
Financial literacy may have been your least favorite High School class, but here is why it’s so important.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLdTM26i9bY

Most people do not understand money in this Jewish capitalist system and it was intentionally designed that way.

Lack of understanding the problem is not the real issue, the system is.

Reminder:
Quote
In the 20th century, Rothschild developed into a pre-eminent global organisation, which enhanced its ability to secure key advisory roles in some of the most important, complex and recognizable mergers and acquisitions. In the 1980s, Rothschild took a leading role in the international phenomenon of privatization. The company was involved from the beginning and developed a pioneering role which spread out to more than thirty countries worldwide. In recent years, Rothschild advised on nearly a thousand completed mergers and acquisitions with a cumulative value in excess of US$1 trillion. Rothschild also advised on some of the largest and most high-profile corporate restructurings around the world.[16]

The price of gold was fixed for years, twice daily at 10:30 am and 3:00 pm, in a small room at Rothschild's New Court headquarters on St Swithin's Lane.[17] The world's main bullion houses: Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Scotia-Mocatta and Société Générale used the agreed rate as a price benchmark for gold products and derivatives in the world's markets. The chairperson, traditionally appointed by the Rothschild bank, sat in the center, although the bank itself has largely withdrawn from trading. The five members of the London Bullion Association: Barclays Capital, Deutsche Bank, Scotiabank, HSBC and Société Générale, now conduct their twice-daily meetings over the telephone. The meetings were a tradition as great as the ringing of the bell at the New York Stock Exchange until 2004.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_%26_Co

Another reminder:



Quote
From the deluge is born a new world, while the Pharisees whine about their miserable pennies! The liberation of humanity from the curse of gold stands before us! — Dietrich Eckart
Quote
The basis of Jewish commercial policy is to make matters incomprehensible for a normal brain.  — Adolf Hitler

To this day, how many people on this planet can accurately describe what a derivative is, even though they caused the 2008 financial crash?


guest5

  • Guest
Africa lost $836bn from 'illicit capital flight' from 2000-2015
Quote
A new report from the United Nations says the continent would be debt free if money hadn't left illegally. Much of the loss is through corruption, tax evasion and mis-invoicing of exports such as gold. The UN says the problem is robbing the continent and its people of their future. But what can be done to stop these practices?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nhDphl5HzA

Colonial Era Map of Africa:

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2020, 01:18:53 am »
The Billionaire Who Wanted To Die Broke Is Now Officially Broke
Quote
Charles “Chuck” Feeney, 89, who cofounded airport retailer Duty Free Shoppers with Robert Miller in 1960, amassed billions while living a life of monklike frugality. As a philanthropist, he pioneered the idea of Giving While Living—spending most of your fortune on big, hands-on charity bets instead of funding a foundation upon death. Since you can't take it with you—why not give it all away, have control of where it goes and see the results with your own eyes?

Over the last four decades, Feeney has donated more than $8 billion to charities, universities and foundations worldwide through his foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies. When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement. In other words, he's given away 375,000% more money than his current net worth. And he gave it away anonymously. While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Because of his clandestine, globe-trotting philanthropy campaign, Forbes called him the  James Bond of Philanthropy.

On September 14, 2020, Feeney completed his four-decade mission and signed the documents to shutter the Atlantic Philanthropies. The ceremony, which happened over Zoom with the Atlantic Philanthropies’ board, included video messages from Bill Gates and former California Gov. Jerry Brown. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent an official letter from the U.S. Congress thanking Feeney for his work.

At its height, the Atlantic Philanthropies had 300-plus employees and ten global offices across seven time zones. The specific closure date was set years ago as part of his long-term plan to make high-risk, high-impact donations by setting a hard deadline to give away all his money and close shop. The 2020 expiration date added urgency and discipline. It gave the Atlantic Philanthropies the time to document its history, reflect on wins and losses and create a strategy for other institutions to follow. As Feeney told me in 2019: “Our giving is based on the opportunities, not a plan to stay in business for a long time.” 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IALt5Jil9JM

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2020, 01:18:29 am »
Surviving an Unlivable Wage | Full Documentary
Quote
"The restaurant industry has driven a significant amount of economic growth since the Great Recession, but many restaurant employees continue to end up hungry due to a two-tiered wage system that allows tipped workers to be paid as little as $2.13 an hour. CBSN Originals' Adam Yamaguchi travels to Indiana to explore the impact of tipping as a primary source of income for people in one of America’s fastest-growing workforces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbvNhQ4lYLE

How poor people survive in the USA | DW Documentary
Quote
Homelessness, hunger and shame: poverty is rampant in the richest country in the world. Over 40 million people in the United States live below the poverty line, twice as many as it was fifty years ago. It can happen very quickly.

Many people in the United States fall through the social safety net. In the structurally weak mining region of the Appalachians, it has become almost normal for people to go shopping with food stamps. And those who lose their home often have no choice but to live in a car. There are so many homeless people in Los Angeles that relief organizations have started to build small wooden huts to provide them with a roof over their heads. The number of homeless children has also risen dramatically, reaching 1.5 million, three times more than during the Great Depression the 1930s. A documentary about the fate of the poor in the United States today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHDkALRz5Rk

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2020, 03:54:37 pm »
The stock market is not the economy
Quote
But as we’ve said before and we’ll surely say again: The stock market is not the economy.

“The stock market is a market where stocks, a type of investment that represents ownership in a company are traded,” said Jessica Schieder, a federal tax policy fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The stock market is where people make bets on what’s going to happen in the economy.
https://www.marketplace.org/2019/09/30/the-stock-market-is-not-the-economy/

Repeat After Me: The Markets Are Not the Economy
Quote
The two have been intertwined in the American psyche since the 1929 stock crash and the onset of the Great Depression. But stocks are not a reliable gauge of overall economic health.
Quote
The stock market looks increasingly divorced from economic reality.

The United States is on the brink of the worst economic collapse since the Hoover administration. Corporate profits have crumpled. More than a million Americans have contracted the coronavirus, and hundreds are dying each day. There is no turnaround in sight.
Yet stocks keep climbing. Even as 20.5 million people lost their jobs in April, the S&P 500 stock index logged its best month in 33 years. After a few weeks of wild swings, the market is down a mere 9.3 percent this year and 13.5 percent from its peak — what most investors would consider a correction. On Friday, after the government released the staggering unemployment figures, the S&P 500 closed up 1.7 percent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/business/stock-market-economy-coronavirus.html

guest5

  • Guest
Everything You Know About Global Order Is Wrong
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2020, 12:40:20 am »
Everything You Know About Global Order Is Wrong
Quote
If Western elites understood how the postwar liberal system was created, they’d think twice about asking for its renewal.
Quote
Klaus Schwab, impresario of the World Economic Forum, released a manifesto in the run-up to 2019's annual meeting at Davos, Switzerland, in which he called for a contemporary equivalent to the postwar conferences that established the liberal international order. “After the Second World War, leaders from across the globe came together to design a new set of institutional structures to enable the post-war world to collaborate towards building a shared future,” he wrote. “The world has changed, and as a matter of urgency, we must undertake this process again.” Schwab went on to call for a new moment of collective design for globalization’s alleged fourth iteration (creatively labeled Globalization 4.0).

Schwab is not the first to make this kind of appeal. Since the financial crisis, there have been repeated calls for a “new Bretton Woods”—the conference in 1944 at which, in Schwab’s words, “leaders from across the globe came together to design” a financial system for the postwar era, establishing the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in the process. It was the moment at which U.S. hegemony proved its most comprehensive and enlightened by empowering economist-statesmen, foremost among them John Maynard Keynes, to lead the world out of the postwar ruins and the preceding decades of crisis. Under Washington’s wise leadership, even rancorous Europe moved toward peaceful and prosperous integration.

This is a story with wide support in places like Davos. It’s also one that deserves far more scrutiny. Its history of the founding of the postwar order is wrong; more important, its implicit theory about how international order emerges—through a collective design effort by world leaders coming together to reconcile their interests—is fundamentally mistaken. What history actually suggests is that order tends to emerge not from cooperation and deliberation but from a cruder calculus of power and material constraints.

Bretton Woods may have been a conference of experts and officials, but it was first and foremost a gathering of a wartime alliance engaged in the massive mobilization effort of total war. The conference met in July 1944 in the weeks following D-Day and the final Soviet breakthrough on the Eastern Front. As a wartime rather than a postwar meeting, disagreements were minimized. Though the conference was about the future order of the international economy and though the aim of the talks was to link national economies back together, the building blocks were centralized, state-controlled war economies. The Bretton Woods negotiators were government officials, not businessmen or bankers. As they had done since the collapse of the global financial system in the early 1930s, central bankers played second fiddle to treasury officials. The Americans who were bankrolling the Allied war effort called the shots.

The basic monetary vision of Bretton Woods was to create order by establishing fully convertible currencies at fixed exchange rates, with the dollar pegged to gold. But the tough conditions of the Bretton Woods monetary architecture set by the United States proved far too demanding for war-weakened European economies. When Britain, the least damaged economy in Europe, tried to implement free convertibility of pounds into dollars, its attempt collapsed at the first hurdle in 1947; the social democratic Labour Party government in London quickly moved to stop the subsequent drain of precious dollars by reimposing exchange controls and tightening import quotas. Meanwhile, the grand design for a free trade order embodied by the Havana Charter and the International Trade Organization fell afoul of the U.S. Congress and was thus stopped in its tracks. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was its cumbersome and slow-moving replacement.

The talk of a connection between the present and the Bretton Woods moment is legitimated perhaps above all by the claimed continuity of the IMF and the World Bank, which were duly set up in December 1945. But beyond institutional titles, this supposed continuity is largely false. Within a year of the founding of its key institutions, almost the entire global agenda of Bretton Woods was put on ice. Already in 1946 the Soviet Union absented itself from the formation of the IMF and the World Bank.

With the Cold War paralyzing the U.N. institutions that had originally been intended to frame Bretton Woods, what emerged under U.S. hegemony was a far narrower postwar order centered on the North Atlantic. The Marshall Plan of 1948 was not so much a complement to Bretton Woods as an acknowledgement of its failure. For true liberals in both the United States and Europe, who hankered after the golden age of globalization in the late 19th century, the resulting Cold War economic order was a profound disappointment. The U.S. Treasury and the first generation of neoliberals in Europe fretted against the U.S. State Department and its interventionist economic tendencies. Mavericks such as the young Milton Friedman—true advocates of free markets in the way we take for granted today—demanded a bonfire of all regulations. They insisted that rather than exchange rates being fixed, currencies should be allowed to float with their value defined by competitive markets. In the 1950s, Friedman could be dismissed as eccentric.

The reality of the liberal order that supposedly came into existence in the postwar moment was the more or less haphazard continuation of wartime controls. It would take until 1958 before the Bretton Woods vision was finally implemented. Even then it was not a “liberal” order by the standard of the gilded age of the 19th century or in the sense that Davos understands it today. International mobility of capital for anything other than long-term investment was strictly limited. Liberalization of trade also made slow progress. The gradual abolition of exchange controls went hand in hand with the lifting of trade quotas. Only when these more elementary limitations on foreign trade were removed did tariff negotiations become relevant. GATT’s lumbering deliberations did not begin making major inroads until the Kennedy round of the 1960s, 20 years after the end of the war. And rising global trade was a mixed blessing. Huge German and Japanese trade surpluses put pressure on the Bretton Woods exchange rate system. This was compounded in the 1960s by the connivance of U.S. Treasury and U.K. authorities in enabling Wall Street to sidestep financial repression and launch the unregulated eurodollar market, based in bank accounts in London.

By the late 1960s, barely more than 10 years old, Bretton Woods was already in terminal trouble. And when confronted with demands for deflation, U.S. President Richard Nixon reverted to economic nationalism. Between 1971 and 1973, he unhitched the dollar from gold and abandoned any effort to defend the exchange rate, sending the dollar plunging and helping to restore something closer to trade balance. If our own world has a historic birthplace, it was not in 1945 but in the early 1970s with the advent of fiat money and floating exchange rates. The unpalatable truth is that our world was born not out of wise collective agreement but out of chaos, unleashed by America’s unilateral refusal any longer to underwrite the global monetary order.

As the tensions built up in the 1960s exploded, foreign exchange instability contributed to a historically unprecedented surge in inflation across the Western world. We now know that this era of inflationary instability would be concluded by the market revolution and what Ben Bernanke dubbed the “great moderation.” But once again hindsight should not blind us to the depth of the crisis and uncertainty prevailing at the time. The first attempts to restore order were not by way of the market revolution but by the means of corporatism—direct negotiations among governments, trade unions, and employers with a view of limiting the vicious spiral of prices and wages. This promised a direct control of inflation by way of price setting. But its effect was to stoke an ever-greater politicization of the economy. With left-wing social theorists diagnosing a crisis of capitalist democracy, the trilateral commission warned of democratic ungovernability.

What broke the deadlock was not some inclusive conference of stakeholders. The stakeholders in the 1970s were obstreperous trade unions, and that kind of consultation was precisely the bad habit that the neoliberal revolutionaries set out to break. The solution, as U.S. Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker’s recent memoirs make embarrassingly clear, was blunt force wielded by the Fed. Volcker’s unilateral interest rate hike, the sharp revaluation of the dollar, deindustrialization, and the crash of surging unemployment dealt a death blow to organized labor and tamed inflationary pressure. The Volcker shock established so-called independent central bankers as the true arbiters of the new dispensation.

They put paid to what Margaret Thatcher referred to as the “enemy within.” But the global victory of the liberal order required a more far-reaching struggle. The world of the market revolution of the 1980s was still divided between communism and capitalism, between first, second, and third worlds. The overcoming of those divisions was a matter of power politics first and foremost, negotiation second. The United States and its allies in Europe raised the pressure on the Soviet Union, and after a period of spectacularly heightened tension, Mikhail Gorbachev chose to de-escalate, unwittingly precipitating the union’s collapse.

The truth is that the postwar moment that the Davos crowd truly hankers after is not that of 1945 but the aftermath of the Cold War, the moment of Western triumph. It was finally in 1995 that the Bretton Woods vision of a comprehensive world trade organization was realized. A sanitized version of this moment would describe it as a third triumph of enlightened technocracy. After Bretton Woods and the defeat of inflation, this was the age of the Washington Consensus. But as in those previous moments, its underpinnings were power politics: at home the humbling of organized labor, abroad the collapse of Soviet challenge and the decision by the Beijing regime to embark on the incorporation of China into the world economy.

Since 2008, that new order has come under threat from its own internal dysfunction, oppositional domestic politics, and the geopolitical power shift engendered by truly widespread convergent growth. The crisis goes deep. It is not surprising that there should be calls for a new institutional design. But we should be careful what we wish for. If history is anything to go by, that new order will not emerge from an enlightened act of collective leadership. Ideas and leadership matter. But to think that they by themselves found international order is to put the cart before the horse. What will resolve the current tension is a power grab by a new stakeholder determined to have its way. And the central question of the current moment is whether the West is ready for that. If not, we should get comfortable with the new disorder.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/everything-you-know-about-global-order-is-wrong?utm_source=pocket-newtab



Carroll Quigley happens to be an American historian. What is wrong with these people? Can't look at Hitler's economics, that would be "anti-Semitism" of course....  ;D
   

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2020, 01:01:30 pm »
Let's talk about how the stock market isn't the economy....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DeGZ_M-yg

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2020, 01:06:00 pm »
Your Guide to the Great Monetary Reset
Quote
Do you know what it means when the Managing Director of the IMF warns of a "new Bretton Woods moment?" How about when the head of the BIS revels in the total surveillance power that digital currencies will afford the central bankers? Well, you're about to. Don't miss this info-packed edition of The Corbett Report podcast where James peels back the layers of the great currency reset onion and uncovers the New World (Monetary) Order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwGQBR2NOeE

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2020, 01:08:27 pm »
Debunking the JFK Silver Certificate Myth
Quote
There are many people who will tell you that JFK was assassinated because he was trying to end the Federal Reserve and replace the Federal Reserve note with silver certificates. Not only is this not true, it's the exact opposite of the truth. Join James for this presentation to the JFK Lancer conference as he separates fact from fiction in the JFK assassination investigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrVhGn1haps

No Cure for a Gold Craze
Quote
In this episode of Keiser Report, Max and Stacy look at the heavy gold buying in Turkey causing fiat currency woes. Wait until the Turks discover bitcoin! In the second half, Max chats to Michael Pento of PentoPort.com about gold and bitcoin in an age when the most legendary hedge fund investors of all are following the market and the market says bitcoin is money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a-RBHEfsIg

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2020, 07:19:29 pm »
Debt Slavery & the Great Reset
Quote
In this episode of Keiser Report, Max and Stacy look at the online conversations of a money printer and how financialization has turned Saudi Aramco into a money losing operation. In the second half, Max continues his conversation with Saifedean Ammous about his new book, The Fiat Standard: The Debt Slavery Alternative to Human Civilization. They discuss how fiat has failed and what possibility of a better post fiat future is on the horizon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KttwmyUzQfc

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7321
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile

Ganbaru

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2020, 11:46:14 pm »
Trickle-down economics exist mostly because of lobbying and most studies that advocate for the theory are rigged by corporations themselves.

Let's see how corporations spend saved tax money :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-year-after-their-tax-cuts-how-have-corporations-spent-the-windfall/2018/12/14/e966d98e-fd73-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html

Quote
But Democrats and other critics of President Trump point to another crucial statistic, one they see as a betrayal of the tax cut’s intent: increased spending on stock buybacks, which can pump up a share price without building anything or hiring anyone. Executives love buybacks because their compensation is often tied to share prices.

Indeed, the modern CEO's primary duty is to increase shareholder value, not maximizing profits. (maximizing shareholder value is supposedly a dying approach, in favor of a more stakeholder-centric one but just look at how Amazon treats its employees and try to imagine that changing anytime soon. It's not.)

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Monetary Wealth
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2021, 01:51:22 pm »
El-Erian: This Bitcoin surge is different than the others
Quote
Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, says the current surge in Bitcoin prices is different than the past because there's a solid foundation of long-term holders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTENF7Zrn0